DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/121

Date of Institution : 15.01.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 04.07.2022

Harjeet Kaur aged 40 years wife of Sukhdev Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of Village Sangwan, Post Office Bhagupur, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. 

    …Complainant

Versus

1. Sigma Diagnostic Centre, Opposite HDFC Bank, Near Bajaj Agency, Tarn Taran Road, Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, through its Managing Director Dr. Avneet Kaur. 

2. Oriental Insurance Company DO 3, 4E/14 Azad Nagar New Delhi Issue Office Code 271100 through its Branch Manager. 

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint U/S 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. Lakhwinder Singh Kaunke Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Sanjeet Singh Adv counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

Sh. PN Khanna Adv counsel for opposite party No. 2.

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant Harjeet Kaur filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against Sigma Diagnostic Centre, Patti and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant has suffering from Liver Pain and she approached the opposite party No. 1 on 27.4.2017 for ultrasound and Dr. Avneet Kaur conducted ultrasound of the complainant and opined that Uterus is normal in size with normal echotexture. Endorertrial echoes are central. Endometrial thickness is 5.2 mm. Both ovaries are normal in size and echotexture. Impression Grade I Fatty Liver Cholelithiasis. Due to some doubt the complainant approached to Guru Nanak Dev Super Speciality Hospital, Tarn Taran for ultrasound where the the same was conducted on 12.8.2017 vide Impression Fatty Liver Grade I. Then the complainant approached Dr. Sudarshan Trehan Memorial Ultrasound and Diagnostic Centre, Patti where the ultrasound of complainant was conducted on 15.8.2017 vide Impression Fatty Liver. The opposite party has given wrong ultrasound report dated 27.4.2017 of the complainant by way of mentioning the wrong impression Cholelithiasis/uterus is normal in size with normal echotexture. Endometrial echoes are central. Endometrial thickness is 5.2 mm. When complainant received this report she was ready to get her operated upon for some specialist doctor but the complainant conducted her ultrasound from both the above mentioned centres and hence the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by way of issuing wrong opinion in rash and negligent manner. The opposite party was requested several times to compensate for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

2) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written version taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer and present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and there is no evidence to prove deficiency in service. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and she has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties. The opposite party is is covered under the profession insurance policy with Oriental Insurance Company. 

4. On merits, it is admitted that Dr. Avneet Kaur of Sigma Diagnostic Centre, Patti has conducted ultrasound of complainant, who is a specialist in the field of Radiology with MBBS and MD degree. She is competent to perform ultrasonographic investigation as prescribed by medical council of India and Punjab Medical Council. The identity of the patient cannot be determined from the report and all three reports are of the same patient cannot be determined for sure. There was no confirmatory tests done to ascertain the diagnosis of gallstones, therefore, it cannot be said with hundred percent surety that whether there were gallstones or not. There is gap of three and half months between the first and second report during which medical treatment could have dissolved gall stones and there is no evidence to prove that the first report give by Dr. Avneet Kaur was incorrect and later two reports were correct. The report given by Dr. Avneet Kaur itself that any abnormality indicated by the ultrasound report was not conclusive and was not the final diagnosis but merely a suggestive finding and that further investigations and clinical correlation was required for the final diagnosis. In all the reports Fatty Liver has mentioned but the impression Cholelithiasis is appearing only in the report of the opposite party. Cholelithiasis involved the presence of gallstones which are concretions that form in the biliary tract usually in the gallbladder. Treatment of gallstones depends on the state of disease. The patient has not submitted any medical record or any recommendation of the treatment as to which she could prove that she was recommended to undergo surgery by any physician. Dr. Avneet Kaur neither prescribed any treatment nor suggested any kind of surgery to the patient. Dr. Avneet Kaur was on maternity leave from 1.8.2017 to 17.1.2018 and during the period between conducting of second ultrasound and filing the complaint  she was in her hometown Siliguri West Bengal and she gave birth to a baby on 12.8.2017 and admitted in hospital. There could have been no means by which the complainant could have negotiated with the opposite party as she came back on 15.9.2017 from Siliguri. Therefore the complainant submitted a false affidavit. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that there is no evidence to rpvoe that the report was wrong. The later reports have been undertaken after a gap of three and half months and after due medication cannot prove the earlier report as wrong. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.  

6. The opposite party No. 2 filed written version taking preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No. 2 so the complaint against the answering opposite party is not maintainable. The opposite party No. 2 has been impleaded in the present complaint at the instance of opposite party No. 1 but no such insurance policy with terms and conditions has been placed on t he file nor supplied to the opposite party No. 2. The Commission cannot fix any direct liability on the answering opposite party. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 while dealing with the complainant. Further, the opposite party No. 2 repeat the written version of the opposite party No. 1 so there is no need to explain the same again. 

7. On merits, it is submitted that there is no proof placed on the file either by the complainant or opposite party No. 1 that whether any hospital policy is standing in the name of the opposite party No. 1 with opposite party No. 2 and whether the duties performed by any consultant is covered under the alleged policy. In the absence of any said policy the complaint is basically liable to be dismissed against opposite party No. 2. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 and its consulting doctor and complaint is not maintainable and without any cause of action. Lastly, the opposite party No. 2 also prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1/A, ultrasonography report of whole abdomen dated 27.4.2017 Ex.C-1, ultrasonography report of whole abdomen dated 12.8.2017 Ex.C-2, copy of ultrasonography report dated 15.8.2017 Ex.C-3, copy of ultrasonography report dated 23.2.2018 Ex.C-4, copy of ultra sonography report dated 23.2.2018 Ex.C-5, affidavit of Harpreet Singh Ex.C-2/A and closed the evidence. 

9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavits of Dr. Avneet Kaur Ex.OP-1/1 and Ex.OP-1/2 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 also tendered in evidence affidavit of NK Singla Sr. Div Manager Ex.OP-2/1, copy of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions Ex.OP-2/2 and closed the evidence and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. 

11. The complainant alleged in the complaint that she  approached the opposite party No. 1 on 27.4.2017 for ultrasound and Dr. Avneet Kaur conducted ultrasound of the complainant and opined that Uterus is normal in size with normal echotexture. Endorertrial echoes are central. Endometrial thickness is 5.2 mm. Both ovaries are normal in size and echotexture. Impression Grade I Fatty Liver Cholelithiasis. Due to some doubt the complainant approached to Guru Nanak Dev Super Speciality Hospital, Tarn Taran for ultrasound on 12.8.2017. As per report of ultrasound, Impression Fatty Liver Grade I. Then the complainant approached Dr. Sudarshan Trehan Memorial Ultrasound and Diagnostic Centre, Patti where the ultrasound of complainant was conducted on 15.8.2017 vide Impression Fatty Liver. The complainant alleged that the report given by the opposite party on 27.4.2017 of the complainant by way of mentioning the wrong impression Cholelithiasis/uterus is normal in size with normal echotexture. Endometrial echoes are central. Endometrial thickness is 5.2 mm. The complainant alleged that on report given by the opposite party she was ready to get her operated upon for some specialist doctor but the complainant conducted her ultrasound from both the above mentioned centres and hence the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by issuing the wrong opinion in rash and negligent manner. 

12. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version and stated that there is no negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 alleged that Dr. Avneet Kaur is a specialist in the field of Radiology with MBBS and MD degree. She is competent to perform ultrasonographic investigation as prescribed by medical council of India and Punjab Medical Council. The identity of the patient cannot be determined from the report and all three reports are of the same patient cannot be sured. The opposite party further alleged that there was no confirmatory tests done to ascertain the diagnosis of gallstones, therefore, it cannot be said with hundred percent surety that whether there were gallstones or not. The opposite party No. 1 further alleged that there is gap of three and half months between the first and second report during which medical treatment could have dissolved gall stones and there is no evidence to prove that the first report given by Dr. Avneet Kaur was incorrect and later two reports were correct. Further, the opposite party No. 1 further alleged that ultrasound report was not conclusive and was not the final diagnosis but merely a suggestive finding and that further investigations and clinical correlation was required for the final diagnosis. The opposite party further alleged that in all the reports Fatty Liver has mentioned but the impression Cholelithiasis is appearing only in the report of the opposite party. Treatment of gall stones depends on the state of disease. The opposite party No. 1 further alleged that patient had not submitted any medical record or any recommendation of the treatment as to which she could prove that she was recommended to undergo surgery by any physician. 

13. The opposite party No. 2 filed separate written version and denied all the allegations mentioned in the complaint. 

14. The complainant has produced the ultrasound report dated 27.4.2017 Ex.C-1, 12.8.2017 Ex.C-2 and 15.8.2017 Ex.C-3. In all the three reports all the doctors diagnosis the Grade 1 fatty liver but the opposite party No. 1 also diagnosis the impression Cholelithiasis. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is clear cut deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1 as Dr. Avneet Kaur not diagnosis correctly. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that there is a gap of three and half months between the first report and second and third report during which medical treatment could have dissolved gallstones and there is no evidence to prove that the first report given by Dr. Avneet kaur was incorrect and later two reports were correct. The complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove that the report given by opposite party No. 1 is false. Moreover, complainant has also failed to produce any prescription slip of any physician or doctor from which she take the treatment and suggested for surgery as alleged in the complaint. Dr. Avneet Kaur neither prescribed any treatment nor suggested any kind of surgery to the patient. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that there must be any expert evidence to prove the negligence of doctor and to prove that the report given by opposite party No. 1 is false and Dr. Avneet Kaur was negligent in any manner. 

15. On the perusal of entire evidence produced by complainant and the opposite parties, it established that the complainant has failed to produce any expert evidence to prove that the report given by the opposite party No. 1 was not correct and doctor was negligent. It may be possible that the complainant took the treatment of gallstones during the period of approximately three and half months and due to medical treatment said gallstones could have dissolved. Therefore, in our view there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

16. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        4th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member